court decisions on music plagiarism and the predictive value of
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Dr. Marc Pendzich
Institute of Musicology
University of Hamburg
Dr. Daniel Müllensiefen
Goldsmiths CollegeUniversity of London
![Page 2: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
1 Introduction2 Method3 Empirical Study4 Summary/next steps
![Page 3: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Melodic Plagiarism: Huge publicinterest, importance for popindustry – little research
Exceptions: Stan Soocher: They Fought The Law,
1999 Charles Cronin: Concepts of Melodic
Similarity in Music-Copyright, 1998
![Page 4: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The aim of the study is to explore how melodic similarity
as measured by modern algorithmsis related to court decisions in individualcases
to measure the similarity of the melodypairs in a sample of cases taken from acollection of court cases and
to evaluate the predictive power of thealgorithmic measurements whencompared to the court ruling.
![Page 5: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
20 cases spanning the years from 1970 to2005 – with a focus on melodic aspects ofmusic copyright infringement.
Creation of monophonic MIDI files, analysis of the written opinions of the
judges, reduction of the court decisions to only two
categories „pro plaintiff“ = melodic plagiarism „contra plaintiff“ = no infringement
![Page 6: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
The Chiffons „He‘s So Fine“, 1963 No. 1 in US, UK highest position 11
George Harrisson, „My Sweet Lord“Single published in 1971 No.-1-Hit in US, UK & (West-)Germany
![Page 7: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Ronald Selle, “Let It End”
Bee Gees, “How Deep Is Your Love” (1977)
![Page 8: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
How do court decision relate to melodicsimilarity?
What is the frame of reference(directionality of comparisons)?
How is prior musical knowledge taken intoaccount?
![Page 9: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Idea: Frequency of melodic elementsimportant for similarity assessment
Inspired from computational linguistics(Baayen, 2001), text retrieval (Manning & Schütze, 1999)
Conceptual Components: m-types (aka n-grams) as melodic elements Frequency counts: Type frequency (TF) and
Inverted Document Frequency (IDF)
![Page 10: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Word Type t Frequency f(t), Melodic Type τ (pitchinterval, length 2)
Frequency f(τ),
Twinkle 2 0, +7 1
little 1 +7, 0 1
star 1 0, +2 1
How 1 +2, 0 1
I 1 0, -2 3
wonder 1 -2, -2 1
what 1 -2, 0 2
you 1 0, -1 1
are 1 -1, 0 1
![Page 11: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
!
IDFC"( ) = log
C
m:" #m( )C Corpus of melodies
m melody
τ Melodic type
τ T # different melodic types
|m:τ ∈ m| # melodies containing τ
!
TF(m," ) =fm "( )
fm " i( )i=1
#
$
Melodic Type τ(pitch interval,length 2)
Frequency f(τ)
0, +7 1
+7, 0 1
0, +2 1
+2, 0 1
0, -2 3
-2, -2 1
-2, 0 2
0, -1 1
-1, 0 1
![Page 12: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
!
IDFC"( ) = log
C
m:" #m( )C Corpus of melodies
m melody
τ Melodic type
τ T # different melodic types
|m:τ ∈ m| # melodies containing τ
!
TF(m," ) =fm "( )
fm " i( )i=1
#
$
Melodic Type τ(pitch interval,length 2)
Frequency f(τ) TF(m, τ)
0, +7 1 0.11
+7, 0 1 0.11
0, +2 1 0.11
+2, 0 1 0.11
0, -2 3 0.33
-2, -2 1 0.11
-2, 0 2 0.22
0, -1 1 0.11
-1, 0 1 0.11
![Page 13: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
!
IDFC"( ) = log
C
m:" #m( )C Corpus of melodies
m melody
τ Melodic type
τ T # different melodic types
|m:τ ∈ m| # melodies containing τ
!
TF(m," ) =fm "( )
fm " i( )i=1
#
$
Melodic Type τ(pitch interval,length 2)
Frequency f(τ) TF(m, τ) IDFC(τ)
0, +7 1 0.11 1.57
+7, 0 1 0.11 1.36
0, +2 1 0.11 0.23
+2, 0 1 0.11 0.28
0, -2 3 0.33 0.16
-2, -2 1 0.11 0.19
-2, 0 2 0.22 0.22
0, -1 1 0.11 0.51
-1, 0 1 0.11 0.74
![Page 14: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
!
IDFC"( ) = log
C
m:" #m( )C Corpus of melodies
m melody
τ Melodic type
τ T # different melodic types
|m:τ ∈ m| # melodies containing τ
!
TF(m," ) =fm "( )
fm " i( )i=1
#
$
Melodic Type τ(pitch interval,length 2)
Frequency f(τ) TF(m, τ) IDFC(τ) TFIDFm,C(τ)
0, +7 1 0.11 1.57 0.1727
+7, 0 1 0.11 1.36 0.1496
0, +2 1 0.11 0.23 0.0253
+2, 0 1 0.11 0.28 0.0308
0, -2 3 0.33 0.16 0.0528
-2, -2 1 0.11 0.19 0.0209
-2, 0 2 0.22 0.22 0.0484
0, -1 1 0.11 0.51 0.0561
-1, 0 1 0.11 0.74 0.0814
![Page 15: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
!
"C(s,t) =
TFIDFs,C(# ) $TFIDF
t,C(# )
# % sn&tn
'
TFIDFs,C(# )( )
2
$ TFIDFt,C(# )( )
2
# % sn&tn
'#% s
n&tn
'
![Page 16: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Ratio Model (Tversky, 1977): Similarity σ(s,t) related to # features in s and t have common salience of features f()
!
"(s,t) =f (sn# tn )
f (sn# tn )+$f (sn \ tn )+ %f ( tn \ sn ),$,% & 0
features => m-types salience => IDF and TF different values of α, β to change frame of reference
Variable m-type lengths (n=1,…,4), entropy-weighted average
![Page 17: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Tversky.equal measure (with α = β = 1)
!
"(s,t) =IDF
C(# )
# $ sn% t
n
&IDF
C(# )
# $ sn% t
n
& + IDFC(# )
# $ sn\ tn
& + IDFC(# )
# $ tn\ sn
&
Tversky.plaintiff.only measure (with α = 1, β = 0)
!
"plaintiff.only(s,t) =IDF
C(# )
# $ sn% t
n
&IDF
C(# )
# $ sn% t
n
& + IDFC(# )
# $ sn\ tn
&
Tversky.defendant.only measure (with α = 0, β = 1)
!
"defendant .only( t,s) =IDFC (# )# $ sn% tn
&IDFC (# )# $ sn% tn
& + IDFC (# )# $ tn \ sn&
Tversky.weighted measure with and
!
" =TF
s(# )
# $ sn% t
n
&TF
s(# )
# $ sn
&
!
" =TF
t(# )
# $ sn% t
n
&TF
t(# )
# $ tn
&
![Page 18: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Ground Truth:20 cases with yes/no decision (7/13)
Evaluation metrics Accuracy (% correct at optimal cut-off on
similarity scale) AUC (Area Under receiver operating
characteristic Curve)
![Page 19: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
![Page 20: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![Page 21: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Observations: Decision sometimes based on ‘characteristic motives’
High-level form can be important (e.g. call-and-response structure)
Reference point can be different
Ronald Selle, “Let It End”
Bee Gees, “How Deep Is Your Love”
![Page 22: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Court decisions can be related closely tomelodic similarity
Plaintiff’s song is often frame ofreference
Statistical information about commonnessof melodic elements is important
![Page 23: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
More US cases UK and German cases (from the “big”
western markets) Include rhythm in m-types Compare to more similarity algos from
literature
![Page 24: Court Decisions on Music Plagiarism and the Predictive Value of](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062401/5866da481a28abc33f8b8bd1/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Dr. Marc Pendzich
Institute of Musicology
University of Hamburg
Dr. Daniel Müllensiefen
Goldsmiths CollegeUniversity of London
Thank you foryour attention!